M: Ooh it’s punchy. Really strong in fact. Letting it breathe does little to tame it. Despite its clarity, there’s definite barrel influence in this nose if nothing else. You can basically smell the staves.
M: Fresh, white grapes. Bloody punchy. Needs some taming. Vanilla and oak at the forefront once some water has been added.
M: There’s that deep burn. A little toasty on that long finish. Pretty sweet / vanilla custard-like once the burn has worn off.
M: Very light in colour and body. It looks like the pre-whisky spirits I’ve seen extracted from barrels before they’ve even hit the 3 year mark to be called ‘whisky’. The booze content makes for a strong, strong whisky, but what the whisky lacks in colour it makes up in the complexity of the delicate flavours that do come thorugh. which you’d hope after 20 years in a barrel. The oak itself is the most dominant feature though and that the grape-like fruitiness meant that, for me. this was just like a light white wine with its booze strength cranked up to 11. Or 51.5, to be more precise. Not a leisurely whisky, but not unpleasant either. Nice flavours in there once you’ve fought off the high booze content.
Side note: This short was enjoyed courtesy of the Dram Team monthly subscription. As part of their package, you receive the team’s own tasting notes on their themed selection and I prefer to hold out and only read the notes afterwards so that I remain untainted by their opinions. It is then interesting to see the crossover (if any). On this occasion, my vanilla pudding matches their creme brûlée note, but I’ve written that any fruits are delicate along the line of white wine grapes whereas the Dram Team writers have opted for “zesty citrus fruits”. It is this variety that makes whisky tasting such a great experience, as each taster will always be correct when it comes to their own opinions and notes. Tasting notes on the younger expression here.